social justice etc. - a preoccupation of the middle class?

[SleepyWitch]

The other day I read a comment by a conservative politician who said only the middle class care about social (in)justice, redistribution of wealth etc. He said that lower-class people don't care about how much anyone earns.
While I'm more leftist, I must admit this guy has a point. The impression I get of lower-class people is that they don't care about anything (including their own life) as long as they've got their booze, xbox, telly. For example, a great number of them doesn't seem particularly bothered about the education of their children... Not only as in not being able to help them (which is understandable) but to the extent that they think education is pointless and they undermine teachers etc.
It seems to be mainly well-educated middle class people who are concerned with social reform. But seeing as the beneficiaries of all these schemes and measures don't seem to be bothered, isn't it about time we left them to rot? I mean, isn't it kind of patronizing to assume that we've got to help them even if they are not interested? Is it that we are secretly scared of social riot and fear that 'they' will kill us all if we stop giving them a minimum of handouts? Or is our whole economy and society flawed, i.e. based on exploiting the poor/creating social contrasts and we don't really want to change that because we profit from it? Or are we to blame for those people focusing on status symbols like TVs etc rather than on education, because we all have these things and have not adopted an alternative life style on a large scale?
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT saying that poor people are benefit frauds and should be forced to work etc etc etc. What I'm interested in is our motivations for pursuing equality and whether we are really serious about it or just paying lip-service.

[JuniperWoolf]

Ouch. Take that poor people.

[SleepyWitch]

hehe, re-read the last bit of my post, Juniper.

[Lokasenna]

I wonder whether this topic is too close to our politics taboo? I shall try to strike a middle ground...

Well, the main reason it gets talked about here is because the what we essentially have, according to many modern psephologists, is a new form of the class system. Working, Middle and Upper have been replaced by what can essentially be seen as an all-encompassing Middle class, and a degenerate 'underclass' (these are not my terms, so don't bash me!)

There are, I think, few who would argue that a certain minority of the population has a self-motivation/self-respect problem; certainly the media does a lot to hammer home the facts. Any government, regardless of its colour, must be 'seen' to be addressing the issue, even if it is in reality doing nothing. If a prominent MP suggested that we should 'leave them to rot', it would almost certainly be electoral suicide. The exact same tabloids that bemoan the proliferation of benefit cheats and pram-pushers would denounce said MP as a callous, inhuman monster. It's Catch-22.

[SleepyWitch]

good points Lokasenna.
What I mean is wouldn't it be more empowering for those people in the long term to be left to their own devices because then they'd have to start to think for themselves and organize?

[Paulclem]

The impression I get of lower-class people is that they don't care about anything (including their own life) as long as they've got their booze, xbox, telly. For example, a great number of them doesn't seem particularly bothered about the education of their children... Not only as in not being able to help them (which is understandable) but to the extent that they think education is pointless and they undermine teachers etc.

Can you really base such speculation on your limited view of poor people? I say limited view meaning how can you know the thoughts circumstances and motivations of the poor? Isn't it just a generalisation, and one that is religiously adhered to by the press - espcially the Mail?

I'm from a poor background - underclass actually as my Dad was an elective unemployed. Your post is relevant to my parents attitude, largely speaking, and I knew families who were the same, but there was a wide variety of cirumstance and motivation. Education is the key - without it you can't begin to appreciate what opportunities are possible.

[SleepyWitch]

Can you really base such speculation on your limited view of poor people? I say limited view meaning how can you know the thoughts circumstances and motivations of the poor? Isn't it just a generalisation, and one that is religiously adhered to by the press - espcially the Mail?

I'm from a poor background - underclass actually as my Dad was an elective unemployed. Your post is relevant to my parents attitude, largely speaking, and I knew families who were the same, but there was a wide variety of cirumstance and motivation. Education is the key - without it you can't begin to appreciate what opportunities are possible.

Can't say that I've ever read the Mail. Of course I am oversimplifying and being polemic. To be honest, I'm playing the devil's advocate here and what I said in the OP doesn't necessarily reflect my own opinion. Actually, I'm not trying to criticize the 'underclass' or anyone. What I'm trying to figure out is whether 'we' (as in middle class people) are serious about helping these people or whether we are actually happy to keep them in a state where they have just about enough material 'wealth' to prevent them from rioting and calling for any major changes to society. Of course, education is the key. But I'm wondering whether some of those 'underclass' people would only realize that if they were in a situation where they can't get by without much of an education.

[Lokasenna]

What I mean is wouldn't it be more empowering for those people in the long term to be left to their own devices because then they'd have to start to think for themselves and organize?

But that could, in theory, lead to anarchy. Even if a treating a cancer is hopeless in the long term, you don't just let it flourish.

You would have no method of guiding their organizational principles - as the Daily Mail would say, if you cut off funding and support, then 'they' would fill the void with crime.

Paulclem is right - the provision of education is a major factor. But most of all, I think that people need to learn self-respect. If you don't respect yourself (i.e, if booze, telly and xbox is all you want out of life), then you are never going to get anywhere. If the desire to better oneself exists, then one can pull oneself up from anywhere.

[SleepyWitch]

If you don't respect yourself (i.e, if booze, telly and xbox is all you want out of life), then you are never going to get anywhere. If the desire to better oneself exists, then one can pull oneself up from anywhere.

I don't know. If they like their booze, telly and xbox, why impose our values on them? ;)

[dafydd manton]

Given the work done by the working classes, particularly in the coalfields of Britain, and more especially tne Valleys of South Wales, in self-improvement, education and the like, I'm not entirely convinced that it is a class thing at all. I suspect that it's more to do with the attitude of an (admittedly growing) sector of the public who just don't want anything better. Some of the most socially aware people I have met are from thoroughly deprived backgrounds, but have done amazing things. I wonder if it might be, at least in part, our perception, in that we hear about the layabouts, it's a media issue, but good news is never any news, so we don't hear as much about the other side of the coin. For the sake of humanity, I sincerely hope so!

[OrphanPip]

My impression of the underclass is that it is diverse and contains many groups. Single female parents make up a large portion of the lowest income earners in society, then you have recent immigrants who lack the education and experience to get the best jobs, then you tend to have the stereotypical image of the poor as the self-obsessed hedonistic morons, which seems a limited perception of any kind of human being.

Actually, I've read papers coming out of the USA that suggests that the view that the poor support less redistributive economic policies over the rich is a misconception. While it is true that in absolute terms, poor areas seem to swing Republican in the USA in much of the South, when you go more in depth into the numbers, it is the poorest relative to the other poor who are more likely to support left leaning politics. So, the assumption that the poor are less likely to favour more wealth redistribution isn't necessarily true.

We should also be sure to remember that the poor may just have a different opinion, and it isn't apathy, but that they actually believe that redistributive policies would not help them.

Personally, I grew up in a working class family that has always supported worker's parties, the union makes us strong ;).

Edit: Also, this pattern doesn't seem to exist at all in Canada, our richest province (Alberta) is by far our most conservative. This may have to do with the unusually strong Christian Left in Canada, associated with the United Church of Canada.

[Paulclem]

Can't say that I've ever read the Mail. Of course I am oversimplifying and being polemic. To be honest, I'm playing the devil's advocate here and what I said in the OP doesn't necessarily reflect my own opinion. Actually, I'm not trying to criticize the 'underclass' or anyone. What I'm trying to figure out is whether 'we' (as in middle class people) are serious about helping these people or whether we are actually happy to keep them in a state where they have just about enough material 'wealth' to prevent them from rioting and calling for any major changes to society. Of course, education is the key. But I'm wondering whether some of those 'underclass' people would only realize that if they were in a situation where they can't get by without much of an education.

I see. As Orphan has pointed out, the poor are made up of different types of groups. We just hear about the ones who make the media headlines. In reality in my work as an Adult Tutor of Literacy I many different types of people - often women with kids, who are trying to get out of poverty by improving thir skills.

I would agree with Orphan, that there are different groups, and as soon as you inflict penalties upon a certain sector, you affect these and the children who also live in poverty.

I was in this situation with my siblings with parents who were both selfish and unskillful. It was pretty horrible being a teen in this situation as I just couldn't take part in anything that cost too much. My youngr siblings were worse off.

[dafydd manton]

I would have thought that any theorist is going to have a hard time arguing with Paul's experience, from both isdes of the fence. Good post.

[SleepyWitch]

I would agree with Orphan, that there are different groups, and as soon as you inflict penalties upon a certain sector, you affect these and the children who also live in poverty.
I totally agree with you. I was being deliberately provocative to get some good arguments out of everyone :)



I was in this situation with my siblings with parents who were both selfish and unskillful. It was pretty horrible being a teen in this situation as I just couldn't take part in anything that cost too much. My youngr siblings were worse off.
Maybe that's part of the problem in today's society in general. The other day I was watching The Super Nanny and there was this family with 4 kids living 10 minutes from the beach in North Wales and they never went to the beach together before the Super Nanny intervened. But they had a huge flat screen telly at home, although they were not exactly rich (4 kids, stay-at-home mum, dad: painter, as in painting walls). :confused: My mum is working class and when she group up, the family went walking every weekend. Of course, they had lots of problems (alcoholism, a physically abusive father), but at least they spend their free time together (for better or worse) and got some exercise all for free. Today, people of all classes don't know how to spend their free time meaningfully anymore without spending money on gadgets, entrance tickets etc. So of course, if the middle class models this kind of life style, the lower classes will copy them and spend what money they've got on entertainment technology rather than doing free activities in their spare time and save the money. I believe this is called "social participation" or some such. :confused:

[Paulclem]

Yet everything social costs money - swimming, cinema, buses, school trips, school clubs with outside trainers, nowadays phones, sport centre activities, computers, internet cafes, clothes, CDs, DVDs etc etc. Yes there are free things, but what are their friends doing? I know i felt excluded sometimes.

Social participation is right - either you'e participating in society with everyone else, or you are excluded. As to the value of those activities, that's about education, so that people make and demonstrate the right choices for themselves and their kids.

[Heteronym]

There is a criticism - if it can be called that - that most revolutionary leaders can't shake off, and it's that they were upper-class, well-educated people. Marx (upper class), Bakunin and Kropotin (Russian aristoracy both), Che (studied to be a doctor), the American Founding Fathers (that included engineers, inventors and journalists). For me this only proves one thing: the more educated one is, the more one will have a fairer, more encompassing view of Mankind.

Now I don't believe the so-called lower classes don't care about improving their lot. Wherever I go, I only hear whispers of people complaining about the state of the world. But that's the problems: it's just whispers. Most people don't try to change the world because they've been indoctrinated to think a) the world is not worth improving, b) it's a task better left for politicians (:crazy:), and c) people are too small and insignificant to change things. An atmosphere of conformism, indifference and uncertainty is holding people back.

The great strikes and workers' marches of the 19th century, however, show that the masses, once organised, educated and mobilised, will fight for this world and that they can have success in improving things.